Mobile Apps Discussion Paper

chulavistajuniorΚινητά – Ασύρματες Τεχνολογίες

10 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

151 εμφανίσεις




Mobile Apps Discussion Paper


Internal Document [Draft]

Prepared by:

Business Integration and Analysis Section

February

2012




Content for this
discussion

paper is compiled and provided by Jared Prins with input from Roy Finzel and Darren McGregor.
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


3

www.albertaparks.ca


T
ABLE

OF
C
ONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................
................................
................................
................................

5

2.0 KEY Principles

................................
................................
................................
................................
.....

7

3.0 Making Decisions


Mob
ile App Considerations and Challenges

................................
.......................

8

3.1 Standards

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........................
8

3.2 Client Driven Mobile App Development

................................
................................
................................
......

10

3.2 Native Apps, Web Apps, and Hybrid Solutions

................................
................................
............................

11

3.2.1 Mobile App Environment


Making ends meet

................................
................................
.....................

11

3.2.2
When to use Native Apps

................................
................................
................................
.......................

13

3.2.3 When to use Web Apps

................................
................................
................................
..........................

13

3.2.4 A Hybrid Approach

................................
................................
................................
................................

14

3.2.5 Additional Native and Web App Considerations

................................
................................
...................

15

3.3 HTML5 and Browser Improvements

................................
................................
................................
............

16

3.4 Mobile Devices Usage, Popul
arity, and more

................................
................................
...............................

18

3.4.1 Mobile device usage in Canada

................................
................................
................................
..............

18

3.4.2 Smartphones in Canada

................................
................................
................................
..........................

19

3.4.3 It’s not just about Smartphones

................................
................................
................................
..............

19

3.4.4 Platform Cultures

................................
................................
................................
................................
....

21

3.5 App Stores/Markets

................................
................................
................................
................................
.......

22

3.6 Miscellaneous ‘Mobile’ Considerations

................................
................................
................................
........

24

3.6.1 Personal Information and Security

................................
................................
................................
.........

24

3.6.2 Dev
elopers and Industry

................................
................................
................................
.........................

24

3.6.3 App Development

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

25

3.6.3 Competition

................................
................................
................................
................................
............

26

4.0

Mobile Use Statistics

................................
................................
................................
..........................

26

4.0.1 Mobile User Behaviors

................................
................................
................................
...........................

27

4.1 AlbertaParks.ca Statistics

................................
................................
................................
..............................

29

5.0 Justifying Mobile App Decisions


Return on Investment

................................
................................
.

32

6.0 Recommendations

................................
................................
................................
...............................

33

Appendices

................................
................................
................................
................................
................

35

Appendix 1: List of Related and Example Mobile Device Apps and Websites

................................
..................

35

Appendix 2: References

................................
................................
................................
................................
......

37

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


4

www.albertaparks.ca



Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


5

www.albertaparks.ca



Key Phrases


N
ative App; Web App
; Mobile App


1.0

INTRODUCTION



“As new web and other Technologies emerge, the nature of the web continues to change and becomes
more integrated into our lives. So much in fact, the UN has recently declared Internet access as a
'fundame
ntal human right' ”
[1].


Mobile computing is one of these emerging technologies. The world is experiencing
“…a lot of buzz
about the mobile revolution…we’re beginning the permanent switch from accessing Web content on
stationary devices to accessing it w
henever and wherever we happen to be
”[2].


Mobile
technologies

mark a major shift in the way people consume information. From a consumer’s
perspective, mobile apps allow people to interact with others, accomplish tasks, and experience things
they value w
herever they are and whenever they like. For organizations, it provides many opportunities
for new or improved services.


Have an idea for a

mobile a
pp? Get in line. The challenge for organizations is to apply substance to
mobile a
pp ideas and opportuni
ties. The first iPhones hit the market in June of 2007. Since then, the
mobile marketplace has changed dramatically and continues to fluctuate. This makes it increasingly
difficult for organizations, particularly Government Agencies, to invest in
mobile

a
pps. But invest they
A N
ative app is a program installed on a mobile device that is specifically
designed to run on a device’s operating system and typically needs to be
a摡灴敤⁦o爠摩r晥牥湴⁤敶nce献


䄠Ae戠b
灰Ⱐ潲⁢牯 se爠r灰汩ca瑩潮Ⱐ楳⁣潤o搠畳d湧⁩湴e牮r琠灲tg牡浭楮g
污湧uage猠seKg⸬⁈KjiⰠCppⰠI湤nga癡pc物灴⤠


污湧畡来猠瑨慴⁣潮獴a湴ny
e癯汶攠瑯⁡摤牥獳⁴桥ee摳映楮瑥d湥琠畳敲猠a湤n睥扳楴e⁤ 癥汯灥牳⸠⁔桥
獵灰潲琠潦⁴桥獥慮g畡来猠sy慪 爠扲潷獥牳r
桡s⁧楶敮⁲楳e⁴漠 e戠b灰猠
⡩⹥⸬潢K汥
J
潰瑩浩ze搠睥扳楴e猩⁷桩捨⁡牥⁡cce獳敤⁴桲潵杨⁴桥潢楬e
device’s browser.


B潴栠乡瑩癥⁡灰猠a湤⁗e戠b灰猠pre⁡cce獳e搠潮d桡湤桥汤⁤敶楣e猠獵捨s
a猠s⁓浡m瑰桯湥
eKg⸬⁩K桯湥ⰠI污c止krry⤠F湤⁴a扬整献†
周楳⁰慰T爠

獴s湧畩獨敳⁢u瑷te渠na瑩癥⁡灰猠p湤⁷n戠a灰猠睨w牥 a灰汩ca扬攬⁷桩he
牥獥牶楮g⁴桥⁴ 牭⁡灰猠p爠浯扩re⁡灰猠p漠o湣潭oa獳⁢潴栮


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


6

www.albertaparks.ca


should.

Clearly if

52% of organizations are currently deploying, or planning to deploy, mobile
applications on Smartphones
[3], there
is something to be said about its usefulness.


However many of these o
rganizations are rushing he
adlong to develop applications for mobile
customers without considering the pitfalls of mobile apps:




Few
mobile a
pps experience
direct

monetary return on investment (ROI)



Mobile a
pp development and maintenance is varied and resource taxing



Native a
pp mark
ets are uncertain and complex



Hardware and software options are complex



Standards and security can effect pre
-
conceived notions


These pitfalls and other points are presented in this paper as
considerations when exploring and
justifying
mobile a
pp projects
. To start the discussion, a set of common principles are suggested.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


7

www.albertaparks.ca


2.0

KEY

P
RINCIPLES


TPR’s Common
Agenda of

Client focused needs,
M
anaging resources efficiently, Innovation, and
Organizational c
apacity
form some key principles to achieving successful

mobile a
pp development:




Client Driven mobile content development is a key to success.
To

coin
a phrase, Appcitement
(excitement about
mobile a
pps) should stem

from appropriately matching a mobile a
pp solution
to client expectations and needs. Appciteme
nt for any other reason should be tempered with
caution by reviewing objectives regularly. Focusing on the client ensures the provision of real
value.




Leverage existing assets.
Smart business leverages existing media assets to promote mobile
calls to ac
tion. Parks has both staff expertise and digital content which can be utilized to provide
valuable and strategic mobile experiences.
By focusing, using, and strengthening what we
already have, Parks can maximize the ROI with mobile apps


particularly wi
th integrating into
existing mobile apps and services. We ca
n also leverage our core business. That is, “…
use
mobile tools to transform core processes and busine
ss models
” [4].




Integrated awareness.
Forward thinking organizations know they must integra
te and/or make
systems aware of available data and information. Establishing a strong data foundation supports
effective bu
siness decision making. Where mobile apps

are concerned, a strong foundation starts
with customer centricity. A unified customer e
xperience allows for optimization and innovation
to better meet or exceed customer expectations.




Keep it simple.

Unless dealing exclusively with Generation Y and younger, the average mobile
user is still a novice. Understanding client needs and business

requirements will make
complexity easier to tackle.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


8

www.albertaparks.ca



3.0

M
AKING
D
ECISIONS


M
OBILE
A
PP
C
ONSIDERATIONS AND
C
HALLENGES

3.1 Standards


A common agenda helps us to focus on our primary purpose: To serve all Albertans. It is fitting that
the first considera
tion discussed is ‘Standards’. When developing websites or
mobile a
pps, there are
some standards to consider:


1.

Web Standards

2.

Government Standards


Web Standards

is a general term for the formal standards and best practices for building web sites.
Web st
andards, in the strictest sense, are not a fixed set of rules but a constantly evolving list of
finalized technical specifications of web technologies released by standardization bodies.




“Standards ensure applications are

search
-
engine
friendly, access
ible, have human
-
readable URLs, and
employ other accepted practices that make them easier
to find and use. Web standards also require careful
attention to the structure of the code behind the sites,
making it easier to maintain in the future.”



From a d
eveloper’s perspective, standards also have the benefit of simplifying maintenance and
changes, and reducing bandwidth consumption and increasing speed of web page
loading [5].



The Government of Alberta

(GoA) also has a set of published standards. While

these standards are
currently about websites, the intent of those standards clearly carries over to
mobile a
pp
development. The most relevant GoA standard to consider for
mobile a
pp development is
Accessibility
.


1


Accessibility involves ensuring that
ALL citizens can
access Government resources and services equally and
fairly. It ensures applications are available to impaired
users and should be available across a wide range of
browsers and devices.






1

Image courtesy of
essentialaccessibility.com

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


9

www.albertaparks.ca


From a standards perspective, Government mobile c
ontent and services should be as cross
-
platform (i.e., device agnostic) as possible.


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


10

www.albertaparks.ca



3.2 Client Driven
Mobile A
pp Development


When it comes to mobile app development, the issue for Parks may be less about choosing either web
apps or native apps, but bo
th.



‘It's

not a debate anymore about mobile website or apps. You need to have both
.’

Apps should
set out to build customer value and brand awareness through differentiation, and to focus on
innovation and inspiration rather than just transactions
.”
[6
]


More importantly
,

the issue is HOW Parks should proceed to develop
mobile a
pps.
Mobile a
pps, like
websites, are an expected way that Albertans want to communicate and receive services. In this
context,
mobile a
pps should be developed with business obj
ectives and user needs in mind. It
involves ensuring that when we say,
“We need an a
pp”, it means
we need a mobile a
pp to improve
Albertans lives and not for the “Coolness Factor” of
having a mobile a
pp.



In order to deliver a stable, well
-
designed and e
ffective smart phone or tablet app, IT leaders
need to step back from the 'we need an app now' hysteria and come up with a list of goals for the
app in the early stages
.”

[7]


I
f the intent of a mobile a
pp is anything other than addressing client needs, i
t will fail from the
start.


Like all public authorities, we are “…under increasing pressure to reduce overhead while providing a
wide array of services to citizens. Ultimately our job is to provide enhanced citizen services as
efficiently as possible. W
e strive to do more with less. By making the right content easy to retrieve,
citizens get the convenience they seek and we can reduce unnecessary overhead and increase the
value and variety of our services and programs
” [8].


With this in mind, t
he first

step with every

mobile a
pp idea is to assess its value to clients. A mobile
strategy should outline:




Why Parks would develop the
mobile a
pp?



For whom is the
mobile a
pp being developed?



What Park services / content are best suited for
mobile a
pps? Are
there other ways to deliver
those services / content? (To use
a

coined phrase, is the idea Appworthy?)



How are
mobile a
pps developed
in the

grand scheme of Park e
-
services, information and
decision support systems?


Knowing client
needs
/expectations, appw
orthiness, and logistics of business integration, helps
determine whether the
mobile a
pp is best suited as a
native app, web a
pp
or a blending of the two

a
s
in a
Hybrid solution.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


11

www.albertaparks.ca



3.2 Native Apps, Web Apps, and Hybrid
S
olutions


To go mobile generally mea
ns picking one of three options:



1.

Native a
pps that users download to their device,

2.

Web
a
pps (or mobile optimized website) which users typically access via a web browser, or;

3.

A

native and w
eb
app
combination (Hybrid).


3.2.1 Mobile App Environment


Makin
g ends meet


Many mobile apps are front
-
end interfaces for a back
-
end of data (i.e., database) and information
[9]. There is a clear separation of content (i.e. data) from presentation and data simply passes back
and forth. For example, Reserve.AlbertaPa
rks.ca (RAP) has a database containing data about
parks. Data from the back
-
end moves to the front
-
end as the user interacts with the system (e.g.,
searching for a park). When the visitor makes a campsite reservation, new data is created in the
back
-
end.



To the user, the front
-
end addresses their need for finding and reserving campsites. Whereas to an
organization, the back
-
end directly addresses the business need for operational and financial
information from RAP. While the primary focus of a mobile

app is to address client needs, it does
not mean the back
-
end can be ingored. In fact, this is quite the contrary.


When the focus of mobile apps is on the front
-
end, an organization risks reducing the value of the
mobile app. At the same time, a poorly

designed back
-
end minimizes its usefulness. Not as
obvious is a back
-
end developed specfically for a set of front
-
end features
with no consideration
for future development opportunities
.
A rushed implementation

is the cause of many unscalable
and inflex
ible systems. They cannot effectively meet changes in client and business needs.


However a strategically developed back
-
end feeds the improvement cycle for the entire project by
providing information about the changing client needs and trends. Such a sy
stem also provides
much needed data used in
the divisions’

decision support systems (e.g., analytics).


Inherent to a well
-
developed back
-
end is its ability to support multiple front
-
ends or support other
back
-
ends. Part of developing a strong back
-
end
relies on better managing the divisions’ data and
information (e.g., digital assets such as text, descriptions, images, reports, video, audio, etc.) as
well as developing a mobile strategy.


To that end, Parks Division is already making the move to a mob
ile optimized website. The
digital assets of the current AlbertaParks.ca website are transitioning to a Content Management
System (CMS) with the goal to complete the transition prior to the start of the 2012 operating
season. The CMS allows for quick con
version of web content into a mobile optimized format.
Once the transition phase is complete, work on the mobile optimization phase will begin. In
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


12

www.albertaparks.ca


essence
the new AlbertaParks.ca website could be considered Parks’ first web app
. Its
primary purpose is t
o make web content easily viewed on mobile devices.


Interestingly, the CMS could be a back
-
end for ‘Park’ mobile apps, or feed other back
-
ends,
decision support systems and analytics tools (e.g., text mining). While the CMS may not always
be the appropri
ate back
-
end for all mobile apps,
AlbertaParks.ca play’s a pivotal role in Parks’
overall mobile strategy
.


Mobile apps (the front
-
ends) change often with user expectations, market opportunities, and
shifting technologies. In comparison, back
-
end systems

are often more constant or experience
only minor changes. The back
-
end is where most of the investment and attention should be given.
Well managed, it can create multiple
and sustainable
opportunities for the Parks Division
.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


13

www.albertaparks.ca



3.2.2 When to use Native A
pps


Unfortunately, for many organizations, they “…create a native app that simply mirrors the
functionality of the current Website which wastes resources and may not yield any significant
incremental benefit to the traveler
” [10]. Native Apps are advanta
geous when: [Sources: 11, 12,
and 13]:




Device Features
-

The native app is dependent on mobile device features such as
geolocation API, camera, address book, touch control, and accelerometer (the device that
allows for tilting and motion).
However, this

is becoming less true as time goes on and
browsers gain support for technologies (See section 3.3 HTML5 and Browser
Improvements.)



Hard Drive Access
-

The native app needs access to hard drive space. (Web app file
storage is limited to 10MB; 5MB in AppCa
che and 5MB in Local Storage. Sophisticated
games or rich media native apps often need more storage space than this).



User Experience
-

The native app needs maximum graphics performance (e.g., games).



Unattended Processing
-

The native app is dependent on

running in the background.



Indie Developer
-

You are an independent developer (aka indie developer) looking for an
easy and solid sales channel to monetize the native app.



Power
-

There is a need for complex calculations/reporting



High Usage
-

There is re
gular usage of the service (e.g. To
-
do list, Calendar)



Personalization


The need to tailor the native apps settings for personal use (e.g., Twitter
or news feed display / reading preferences)


3.2.3 When to use Web Apps


In contrast, web apps are advantag
eous for: [Sources: 11, 12, and 13]



Immediacy


Web apps are instantly available on the World

Wide Web.



Compatibility


A
web a
pp can reach users across many different types of mobile devices
(a
.
k
.
a
. Cross platform, device a
gnostic).



Upgradability and Ma
intenance
-

Web development has rapid deployment and easier
maintainability. They also tend to be more scalable and flexible
.



Discoverability


Web apps

are easier for users to find because their pages can be
displayed in search results (e.g. Google Searc
h).
They don’t rely on App Markets to ‘get
noticed’. (Native a
pps are increasingly difficult to discover in App Markets due to
‘a
pp
saturation


-

over 180,000

native
apps on Apple
’s

App Store alone).



Share
-
ability


Web apps

can be shared easily by publi
shers and between users.



Reach


Being cross platform and shareable,
w
eb
a
pps can be accessed by a much larger
audience.



Life Cycle


Web a
pps are always available whi
le the average shelf
-
life of a n
ative
a
pp is
short (some research suggests less than 30 d
ays and
those who download it only use it once
[14]).

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


14

www.albertaparks.ca



It would seem apparent
t
hat

web a
pps fit naturally with business practice and strat
egy whereas the
use of n
ative
a
pps lean more toward the technological. Businesses are findin
g it a challenge to
know

where n
ative
a
pps fit in the overall business strategy.
The reason is that
“The universal
tendency has been to equate mobile experiences with native apps and ignore the importance of
web apps
.”
[12]


Companies

often
fall into a trap, as recently reporte
d by Nielsen Norman Group, that
“…companies with perfectly functional websites are wasting their time making a less
-
functional
iPad app


[15].


Businesses

fail to recognize that
w
eb
a
pps are
“…usually more accessible to casual users than
native apps (as the
y do not require the ‘commitment’ of downloading to the device), and they are
increasingly just as quick and responsive as native apps because of improvements in
programming
.”

[12]


So as the hype about
n
ative
a
pps is tempered with sound business practic
es,
and
the
gradual
rise of
Hybrid approaches and advancements in technologies the gap between
web and n
ative

apps is
lessened
.


A safe bet is
“If you can do it with the Web


do it with the Web. It’s faster, cheaper, and
easier”

[16].


3.2.4

A Hybrid App
roach


A hybrid approach attemp
ts to leverage the benefits of n
ative
apps and w
eb
apps
[17]:





When developing a mobile solution, a hybrid approach can allow
more
cost
ly

features delivered
via
web apps instead of n
ative

apps
, it can take advantage of
d
e
vice specific features when needed,
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


15

www.albertaparks.ca


and it can minimize the risk of having mobile investments lost due to
native a
pp store rejection or
return on investment delays from
native a
pp
s
tore approval processes.




Example of a Hybrid approach

[6]


Ebookers is a
n online agency specializing in worldwide travel. It offers a wide range of
products from over 250 airlines, 95,000 hotels, package holidays, car hire and insurance.


"Backed by its slogan 'book easier, travel happier', Ebookers adopted a two
-
pronged appr
oach
in entering the mobile space."


It first addressed its core business: "To fulfill the 'book easier' part of their promise, Ebookers
launched a mobile optimized website".


The second prong was in developing a value
-
added product (for its more loyal cu
stomers) to
help clients "travel happier".


The Ebookers team is paying close attention to user behaviors

to the mobile site and
app.


Web apps, n
ative
a
pps, and other mobile content mechanisms

(i.e. Text Messeges (SMS))

can
co
-
exist advantageously. The

above
example alludes to a key element about
how

to approach a
Hybrid model. To quote Dion Almaer, VP of mobile architecture at Walmart.com and former
developer with Palm, Mozilla and Google:


The whole native vs. Web debate is very flawed…The hybrid app
roach doesn't mean
using native and Web APIs in equal measure
.
It means using the right tools for the
job.


[13]

The po
int is, instead of focusing on web vs. native vs. h
ybrid, think of
mobile a
pps in the context
of core
-
business vs. value
-
added.

“From
a market segmentation perspective, the native app
should be targeted to your best customers and as a result provide unique functionality that takes
advantage of

location, personalization,
and situation
.”
[10]


Approach web a
pps for the core of
Park

busin
ess, and
n
ative
a
pps with value
-
added,
segment

specific ideas.
Native a
pps are ‘Flagship
a
pps’ focused on creating an experience
with a single objective for specific customer segments.


3.2.5
Additional

Native and Web App Considerations


Other minor but r
elevant points to consider
[Source: 11, 12, and 13]



It is not recommended to build native apps if providing more than a small
number of
functions (
otherwise it confuses users

[15]).

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


16

www.albertaparks.ca




Native a
pps released in
native a
pp
s
tores tend to have greater uptake at i
nitial launch
, with
declining growth thereafter.




Web
a
pps allow publishers and service providers to serve all
Smartphone

audiences (i.e.
cross platform) without the compatibility issues facing native app distribution.



Development tools for native a
pps ar
e more advanced, but this is slowly changing.



For user analytics,
w
eb
a
pps and web sites generally offer superior and more direct,
unfiltered access to user behavior data, which in turn enables product cross
-
selling
opportunities and helps build customer l
oyalty.
The web is easier to integrate into decision
support systems
with

analytics tools and processes which can increase the ROI of
aforementioned investments already made by Parks.



In regards to billing, w
eb apps or mobile
-
optimized web sites typically

offer greater billing
options and allow for open distribution, independent of third
-
party vendors such as carriers
or OEM app stores.



One unique risk for native apps is patent predators. The w
eb has fewer patent predators, at
least at the moment. Develo
pers who create iOS or Android apps do so at their own risk
and many hundreds have been threatened with patent claims. Web development doesn't
come with indemnity either, but the W3C, the standards body that oversees Web standards,
has agreements from the

more than 50 tech
nology

companies participating in the HTML
Working Group that their technology is available royalty
-
free.


3.3 HTML5 and Browser Improvements


Knowing the advantages of native and web a
pps alone is still not enough to make a decision. T
here
are web technology advancements to factor in.


"When smart phones first reached the market, native apps clearly offered the best
way of completing tasks on the device.
But the situation is changing: With
mobile browsers improving, broadband speeds
quickening, and HTML5 right
around the corner, many people in the wireless community are questioning the
assumption that native apps are the best way to deliver content and services to
mobile users.”
[18]


Of no
te
is

the lessening gap between
native a
pps
and
web a
pps.
“The constant evolution of web and
browser APIs, coupled with the increasing connectivity of native applications, continue to blur the
lines between web and native applications in terms of end user experience
.”
[19].
Basically,
Browsers and

HTML5 (the language of the web) are starting to support
many
features wh
ich were the
very reasons for using native a
pps:




IP and GPS based geolocation.



Video, audio and animations (e.g.
,

gaming)



Local storage



Swipe detection (swipe touch control, using J
avaScript)


The following

n
ative vs.

web vs. h
ybrid chart illustrates that transition
[32 (Adapted)]:

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


17

www.albertaparks.ca





When speaking of web apps, the term ‘HTML5’ often comes up
.



“HTML5 is a language for structuring and presenting content for the World Wide Web, a
nd is a
core technology of the Internet. It is the fifth revision of the HTML standard (created in 1990).


Its core aims have been to improve…support for the latest multimedia while keeping it easily
readable by humans and consistently understood by compu
ters and devices (web browsers,
parsers, etc.).”


In 2009, HTML5 was reported as being one of the top technological disrupters of the year [20].
Had
HTML5 been around when the
iPhone first launched in 2007, native a
pps may not have had as much
success.


T
hough it may not become an
official

standard for a while, it is already being supported by the major
browser vendors (e.g. Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera), and sites and services such as YouTube
Mobile, Google Gmail,
Microsoft’s Bing,
and Apple's iPhone

and iPad. They all rely on HTML5
instead of plugins such as Adobe's Flash.
HTML5 is here to
stay [21].


The emerging web standards (i.e., HTML5) are being used to create compelling applications. In the
near future, a web application will work for the m
ajority of mobile platforms, if not all of them, and it
should work on any HTML5
-
compliant web browser, whether that browser is on a mobile device or a
desktop PC.


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


18

www.albertaparks.ca


3.4 Mobile Devices Usage, Popularity, and more


The mobile device market sees new products

every month. Devices include not only
Smartphone
s
and tablets, but feature phones (
i.e.
traditional cell phones),

ebook readers,
netbooks
,

laptops,
ultrabooks,
digital cameras, enterprise digital assistants, RFID (radio frequency identification)
devices
,

smart card readers, and personal navigation devices (i.e. GPS).


Opportunistic organizations task themselves with understanding these and other emerging
technologies and their potential business applications.


For investing in new projects for Smartphone

and tablet devices, businesses need to ask a number of
basic questions.
How many Smartphone platforms are there? What is their market share? How
many are using these platforms and who are they? What are our customers using and what are they
using them

for?


Some statistics are presented below and throughout this paper which provide an
indication

of the
mobile landscape in Canada.


For better informed

mobile a
pp decisions, Canadian statistics are preferred (if available). This is
important because man
y of the statistics available are U.S. based and there are significant differences
between American and Canadian mobile trends and statistics.


T
he mobile ecosystem is changing on a monthly basis. Therefore, statistics should be weighed
equally with exper
t advice, research, and discussion.


3.4.1 Mobile device usage in Canada


“ComScore reports 6.6 million Smartphone owners in Canada as of March 2011. This is 33% of
the total mobile subscriber base.
This places Canada as one of the world’s leaders in
Sm
artphone adoption, narrowly edging out the US” [22].
Contrast this to one year ago when
experts said “…
among developed countries, [Canada] sees one of the lowest mobile penetration
rates
”. [23]


This significant subscriber base can make
mobile a
pp develo
pment seem attractive, but the relative
newness of
Smartphone
s means there is not enough data to suggest how fast the rate of adoption is
growing. All that can be said for certain is that the mobile platform market will be chaotic for
quite some
time [10]
.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


19

www.albertaparks.ca



3.4.2 Smartphone
s

in Canada


“In absolute terms, [mobile] usage across Canada is still relatively small”.
23% of online adult
Canadians own a smartphone and 3% own a tablet [24].


As of March 2011, RIM was the leading mobile Smartphone

operating syste
m with 42.0%
share
of Canadian
Smartphone

subscribers.
Apple ranked second with 31.0%
sha
re, followed by
Google with 12 %
, Symbian with 6.4
% share and Microsoft with 5.1%
share [25]:


Top Smartphone Platforms

March 2011


Total Canada Smartphone Subscribe
rs Ages 13+

Source: comScore MobiLens



Share of
Smartphone
Subscribers

Total Smartphone Subscribers

(8 million Canadians)

100.0%

RIM

42.0%

Apple

31.0%

Google

12.2%

Symbian

6.4%

Microsoft

5.1%



Though most apps seem to first appear on the iPhone,
the importance of the Android and
BlackBerry platforms cannot not be ignored as each has a significant market share. For non
-
US
roll
-
outs Nokia is an essential platform as well. We also have the launch of Windows 7 in the
fourth quarter of this year and
the re
-
emergence of WebOS under the direction of HP as wild
cards to consider as well, not to forget about the explosion of tablets that will hit the market over
the next 12 months.
Mobile Chaos will be the norm for some time
.


[24]


In considering

n
ativ
e ‘Flagship’

a
pps, it becomes a difficult decision
within this ‘m
obile
c
haos’.
While many people would naturally think iPhones

are the ideal device to target, the statistics
suggest otherwise.

Moreover, although RIM is popular, recent changes within the
organization
are cause for concern.


To make matters worse,
Smartphone
s are not the most widely owned mobile device

3.4.3

It’s not just about Smartphones


T
here are other devices and opportunities worth considering in a mobile strategy

besides
Smartphones.

O
ne particular device stands out
,

the
feature phone
.
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


20

www.albertaparks.ca




Overall, Feature (traditional) cell phones outnumber Smartphones two to
one [22]. Smartphone

users

are younger, typically 18
-
24 [19].
It may be a
challenge to think of a Parks mobile App that woul
d interest this group.

The
breakdown of traditional vs.
Smartphone users by Age is provided below [26].






When considering developing Apps for Smartphones only, consider Apple’s ranking in the grand
scheme of mobile
computing [25]:


Top Mobile OEMs

S
eptember 2011

Total Canada Mobile Subscribers (Smartphone & Non
-
Smartphone) Ages 13+

Source: comScore MobiLens



Share (%) of Mobile
Subscribers

Total Mobile Subscribers (20.1 million
Canadians)

100.0%

Samsung

25.2%

LG

20.0%

RIM

14.3%

Apple

12.0%

No
kia

10.1%


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


21

www.albertaparks.ca



Current research suggests that downloaded applications were used by 40.9% of the total mobile
audience, compared to 84.2% of Smartphone subscribers [25]. If not about the mobile apps, then
why are traditional mobile phones still popular? Some

consumers have become frustrated with the
complexity, expense (both hardware and data plans), and security of Smartphones that they are
moving back to traditional cell phones (Feature phones).



For a mobile strategy, are Feature phones relevant? The so
cial network giant, Facebook, recently
spent $70 million purchasing a company that builds Feature phone Apps [27]. Although the future
of Feature phones remains uncertain, they are evolving and need to be considered in the ‘mix’.



3.4.4 Platform Cultures


Perhaps the most revealing aspect of
Feature phones
is that it
illustrates how deeply devices are
tied to consumer personality. Many are loyalists that stick with particular brands and models.
Others have no allegiances at all.
M
obile device

manufactu
rers

attempt to capture a specific
market segment
by catering to consumers that exhibit
certain characteristics. Indeed there exists
‘Platform Cultures’.


A
Platform

(Computing Platform) describes a devices architecture (physical hardware),
operating sys
tem, programming languages and their runtime libraries that allow and determine
which software can run. An iPhone
a
pp cannot run on Blackberry devices. Two
native a
pps
would need to be built.


Examples of popular Smartphone platforms include RIM Blackb
erry, Apple iOS (which run
iPhones and iPads), Google Android, and Windows Phone 7.


Choosing to build a native a
pp not only involves looking at the hardware and the operating
system, but also about choosing consumer group
types, those Platform

Cultures.


“Not all native platforms are the same. It’s not just a technical question. Each has its own
personality that influences people’s expectations.”
There are certain trend statements that can be
made about phone user personalities [16]:




Blackberry has far

more email and texting but much lower browser use.



A t
hird of worldwide mobile web traffic comes from iOS despite having half that in market
share. IPhone marketing targets people, family, connection, and software for media usage.



Android
is about tools
& technology, a way

to be more awesome. Its bleeding edge and
not as polished. Google acts as the shepherd of the geek flock.



Windows Phone 7 is trying to bring Windows back to mobile by focusing on personal
connections and high customizability.


With th
e mobile device industry in a constant state of fluctuation, there is a certain risk for Parks to
invest resources in specific devices and platform cultures. Ignoring some devices risks alienating
a
segment of

your consumers
.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


22

www.albertaparks.ca



3.5 App Stores/Markets


Whil
e the consumer side has personality, so too does the vendor side. This is abundantly clear when
understanding how users install native apps on devices, through native ‘app stores/markets’.


Selling
native a
pps is not an easy task. Apple (iOS), Google (An
droid) and RIM (Blackberry)
platforms all have their own
native a
pp
m
arkets.



iOS calls theirs the “App Store” (and iTunes)



Android has the “Android Market”



Blackberry has “Blackberry App World”



Windows Phone has the “Windows Marketplace”

Each market allo
ws Smartphone and tablet users to discover themes, games, and software for their
mobile devices.

Native app m
arkets are tightly controlled by the vendor. That is to say,
once you’ve built a
native
app,

getting it approved by the vendor for placement in th
eir
native app market
is an entirely separate
challenge.
T
here is an approval process for most, if not all of them. However the
native a
pp
approval process can be frustrating, time consuming, and sometimes impossible, all of which
threaten
the ROI of any

native a
pp:



Some
native a
pps never see the light of day because they are not accepted by the vendor for
placement in their
native a
pp
market
.
It can be for any reason, such as being viewed as
competition to an existing native app, or if the vendor thinks

the native app is too complex, or
a laundry list of other rules [28].



Each
native app market
has their own set of rules that
native
apps and developers must accept.



In the case o
f Apple, even after allowing a native a
pp in the store, they can decide to p
ull it
for any reason and at any time
. In fact,
Apple

sometimes does this to develop its own
similar
native a
pp. One
native a
pp was pulled “…
from Apple’s
App Store by the developer
for an emergency bug fix, which has since been rejected, meaning the game

is currently
unavailable
.

[29].



Markets are often saturated with
native a
pps making discovery of YOUR
native
app difficult



Native a
pps can introduce security risks, particularly to personal information



When you sell n
ative iOS or
native
Android

apps thr
ough the iTunes App Store or Android
Market, you pay 30% revenue to Apple or Google. (
In contrast

o
ffering a w
eb app costs little
to nothing).

Although containing fewer
apps than their native a
pp
market
counterparts, HTML5

app m
arkets

(web
app markets)

ar
e on the rise. There may be some rules in place, but these markets typically operate
under a greater spirit of collaboration and openness.

HTML5 a
pp
stores

are available for all phones
with HTML5 supported browsers. Here is a short list

of HTML5 app
-
lik
e m
arkets:

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


23

www.albertaparks.ca




Open App MKT(
http://openappmkt.com/
)



TapJoy (
https://www.tapjoy.com/
)



Zeewe (
http://www.zeewe.com/zeewe/web/
)



Play Haven (
http://www.playhaven.com/
) Supports iOS and will soon support other
platforms.



Appia (
http://www.appia.com/
)



Google Chrome App Store (
https://chrome.google.com/webstore#
)

(For those interested in this topic, there are even non
-
app stores that allow for cross
-
platform
a
pp
development and

a
pp distribution (e.g. Rhomobile:
http://rhomobile.com/
, Appcele
rator:
http://www.appcelerator.com/
)
)
.

The challenge with
native a
pp
markets

is that some experts are questioning their future. Although
they likely will never disappear, they may be in for a radical change:

“The

business of making native apps for mobile devices is dying, crushed by a fragmented
market and restrictiv
e business practices (i.e. App s
tores).
The problems are so bad that the
mobile web, despite its many technical drawbacks, is now a better way to del
iver new
functionality to mobiles...This has huge implications for mobile operators, handset companies,
developers, and users.”

[30]


The reliance on the native app m
arket to sell and distribute
native a
pps does carry some risk which
Parks may not want to
entertain
. While there will always be those who feel that they
must

have a
native app for each major platform (i.e. iOS, Android, Blackberry), success will only come from
working smarter, not harder
.

[21]
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


24

www.albertaparks.ca



3.6 Miscellaneous
‘Mobile’
Considerations


While

not ‘game changing’, the following points are worth sharing.


3.6.1 Personal Information and Security


There are a number of security issues with mobile devices. While the industry is making strides to
address these threats, the reality is that mobile de
vices are being used to gain access to personal
information, among other annoyances.


Whether a customer cares, does not care, or is unaware of these mobile threats to their personal
information, Government is obligated to consider these threats. GoA has
a responsibility under
FOIP to protect citizen’s personal information.

3.6.2 Developers and Industry


With new browsers, new screen sizes, new operating systems, new web programming languages,
new programming frameworks, not to mention new client demands

and expectations, it is no
wonder that
“Today, due to the relative newness of the shift that is taking place, a scarcity of
talent exists to create applications for these new and emerging platforms and devices.
” [31].


A web search for 3
rd

party a
pp deve
lopers will list thousands of c
ompanies claiming expertise in
a
pp development. With any emerging technology, many new companies have appeared, yet many
have little to no experience with the technology. Of greater concern, these developers are
approaching

mobile applications with many for the same tried
-
and
-
true approaches used in more
traditional software development. One needs to be cautious when entering into this market.


Many

a
pp development companies send out emails

to promote their a
pp products or
ideas. Such
emails are common as these developers seek customers. Not responding to these emails and
engaging as little as possible ensures client needs are not clouded or skewed toward developer
opinions.


For a recent example in Parks, an email
(
edite
d
for presentation purposes) from an a
pp developer
to a
Parks
manager provided some website statistics in the hopes of being hired to build an iPhone
native
app. In this example, Company A and Company B are unrelated to the Tourism sector:


For both Compa
ny A and Company B, approximately 10% of the traffic to the web site is on a mobile
device. Of that 10% the breakdown of the devices is:


84%
-

iPhone/iPod/iPad

8%
-

BlackBerry

7%
-

Android


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


25

www.albertaparks.ca


While the 84% iPhone figure is eye
-
catching, the first reaction
should be that only 10% of the web
site visitors are from a mobile device. There are other issues:




Focusing on 10% of customers is at the cost of the other 90%. Simply put, it’s not fair. It
also doesn’t make business sense to invest in such a small se
gment unless that segment is
responsible for the majority of business revenue/benefits.



Company A and B customers are not a similar segment to Park customers. Their needs are
different and not comparable. This would be no different than Parks entering vi
deo game
development because the video game industry makes billions of dollars each year. That’s
not to say Parks shouldn’t consider a video game, but if it were to, it is based on strategic
reasoning
.


3.6.3 App Development


There is a tendency t
o assume

the development of a mobile a
pp should be outsourced.
Outsourcing is one of only three main options. While it is the most traditional approach, it is also
arguably more costly. Furthermore, current examples of software development make strong cases
tha
t outsourcing does not result in a best
-
of
-
breed final product. Consider these sou
rcing options
for developing a mobile a
pp:


1.

Outsourcing


Contract a 3
rd

party app developer. A word of advice with this option:
Ensure Parks owns the entire product when i
t is complete (i.e. Intellectual property and
source code). Otherwise, vendor lock
-
in may result. Should you need to switch vendors
or even customize new features, it can become impossible or expensive. Your goals are
the mercy of the vendor.


2.

Insourcin
g


By leveraging exisiting assets and knowledge, much (even all) of Parks’
mobile outreach can be done without building any mobile apps. Integrating into exising
platforms and mobile apps may be more beneficial, particularly with limited resourcing.
For

example, TripAdvisor (which has a huge client base) already has a mobile app.
Similarly, to drive web traffic to AlbertaParks.ca, Parks could take advantage of Wikipedia
by posting some (but not all) park information. There are mobile apps that connect
to
Wikipedia content, including a mobile app from Wikipedia itself.


Insourcing enhances creativity and allows for opportunities like ‘Mashups’. Mashups are
website or web app hybrids that combine data, presentation, or functionality from two or
more so
urces to create new services and address client needs.


Collaborating (i.e. partnership) with companies that already have a useful mobile app is
worthy of investigation, particularly where funds are an issue. Appendix 1 lists mobile
apps and related sit
es that
may

be worth consideration or serve as an example. These links
were collected from Park staff emails and discussions and
do not form

an exhaustive list.


3.

Crowdsourcing



The act of sourcing tasks traditionally performed by specific individuals
to
a group of people or community (crowd) through an open call.

Crowdsourcing is a
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


26

www.albertaparks.ca


newer concept and acceptance of this method is slow within the Public sector, but it is
happening. Of recent news is the City of Ottawa that will be initiating an App
Develop
ment Contest (Crowdsourcing).
They
“…intend to hold an app competition next
year, similar to one launched when the city started the open
-
data initiative”

[32].


3.6.3 Competition

Mobile a
pps of every genre are met with layers of competition, both from exp
ected and unlikely
sources:



Popular
mobile a
pps can be dethroned in a heartbeat.

The popular Angry Birds game,
a hugely successful mobile device game
, is said to have been overtaken by a 14
-
year olds
game, Bubble Ball, built in one month’s time [33]. Whi
le mobile gaming is one of the
most competitive industries, competition can come from anywhere.




Native apps compete for phone memory and performance.

Low space or poor
performance lead users to uninstall native apps. They are removed in order of least u
sed
and least valuable. Will Park users keep a Parks mobile app or the latest game? Web apps
can live on the web and avoid this issue. (Even if the Native app remains on the phone, it
competes for attention: 59% of native app users say they organize the
ir native apps so that
the most frequently used are easily accessible [34].


4.0

M
OBILE
U
SE
S
TATISTICS

In creating a business case for ROI in mobile apps, mobile usage statistics are useful to highlight
potential opportunities.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


27

www.albertaparks.ca



4.0.1 Mobile User Behavior
s


Mobile subscribers (i.e. Smartphone and Feature phone users) in Canada use their mobile devices
for many tasks:





Select Mobile Content Usage

September 2011

Total Canada Mobile Subscribers and Smartphone Subscribers Ages 13+

Source: comScore MobiLens



Share (%) of Mobile
Subscribers

Share (%) of
Smartphone
Subscribers

Total Mobile Subscribers

100.0%

100.0%

Sent text message

67.4

88.1

Used downloaded application

40.9

84.2

Accessed news and information

39.5

79.3

Used browser

36.9

74.8

Used email
(work or personal)

32.7

69.3

Accessed Social Networking Site or Blog

29.2

60.7

Played games

28.0

53.2

Accessed weather

27.5

60.2

Accessed search

24.2

51.2

Listened to music on mobile phone

20.8

40.7

Accessed maps

20.1

44.4

Accessed sports informatio
n

14.8

31.5

Accessed entertainment news

14.2

29.5

Accessed bank accounts

13.5

28.8

Scanned QR/bar code with mobile phone

8.1

18.1


[Source: 25]


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


28

www.albertaparks.ca




These activies are slightly different for Smartphone and Tablet users:


Top App Genres


p浡m瑰桯湥猠t⁔
a扬整b

佮汩湥⁁摵汴猠⠱㠫⤠F桯⁏ 渠n⁓浡m瑰桯湥⽔tbe汴⁡湤⁨n癥⁄ 睮汯w摥d⁡琠tea獴湥s
䅰瀠潮⁒A獰sc瑩癥⁄e癩捥

p潵牣e㨠f灳潳⁍潢楬
J
汯ly⁗a癥‱′〰


p浡m瑨灨潮敳
渽㔴〩

呡扬整猠
渽㐵〩

tea瑨敲

㘵S

㘷S

䝡浥m

㘴S

㜶T

p潣楡氠乥瑷潲t楮g

㔷R

㐱4

䵡灳…

ka癩条瑩潮

㔲R

㐷4

f湳瑡湴⁍e獳sg楮g

㐳4

㈱O

䕮瑥牴r楮ie湴

㐲4

㔳R

䵵獩c…⁁畤楯

㌶P

㐳4

pea牣栠䕮g楮i

㌵P

㐶4

乥睳w

㌲P

㐹4

p灯牴p

㈸O

㈴O

B潯歳

ㄸN

㘱S

xp潵牣e㨠㈴W


p浡m瑰桯湥猠t湤⁔n扬整b⁩渠灡 瑩c畬慲⁡牥⁵獥搠d物浡物ry⁦ 爠r湴n牴r楮ie湴⁦潬n
潷o搠dy⁳潣楡氠
灡牴楣楰慴楯渠慮搠煵楣欠k湦潲浡瑩潮⁲m瑲楥va氮l


乯瑥睯w瑨y⁦ 潭⁴桥 a扯癥

獴慴楳瑩c猠潮⁡cce獳sng 浡灳Ⱐm
桥′〱〠 a浰
e爠pa瑩獦sc瑩潮⁓畲癥y
牥灯牴猠p
a灳⁴漠扥湥f⁴桥潳 ⁳潵 桴⁡h瑥爠楮r潲浡瑩潮⁡扯畴⁐a牫献


Perhaps the most alarming
statistic is that only 13% of Smartphone

users have ever paid for
a native a
pp. To make matters worse, more than half of downloaded

native

apps are deleted
within 2 weeks.

The [U.S.] survey, published by Nielsen and The Pew Research Centre, indicates that

only 13
per cent of adults have ever paid for an app on their Smartphone, and if they have, it’s usually
comparably inexpensive. The survey also suggests that only 35 per cent of adult cell phone users
have apps on their Smartphones, and of that 35 per c
ent, only 24 per cent actually use them
.

[35]

The following (U.S.) statistics are also enlightening:



26% of the time a native app is used only once [36]



29% of adult cell phone users have downloaded a native app to their phone [34]



56% of native app users

delete native apps from their phones that are not useful or
helpful [34]

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


29

www.albertaparks.ca




Native a
pp users are mostly male (57% male v.
43% female), are more likely than
other adults and other cell phone users to be college graduates (39%) and have
incomes of $75,000 or m
ore (36%) [34]



Game apps were the most downloaded
native
apps overall in terms of both volume
and the percent of adults in the sa
mple who had downloaded
them [34]



The
average price for a native app in North America is $2.43
[37]

These numbers impact any R
OI when
looking at direct native app sales
. Clearly,
a native

apps
purpose has to be more than monetary return and must serve the most basic of Park customer
needs.

Some final research worth sharing comes from a survey conducted on U.S. travelers entitled

“Who has
tablets

and how are they used?”
[38].
It

reports that 7% of active travelers currently
have access to the Internet from an iPad or tablet, and they perform the following activities:

Activity

Percent

Finding restaurants or shops based on criteri
a

46

Comparison shopping airfares and hotel rates

42

Search for latest info on flight schedules and delays

39

Book air travel or lodging

37

Ratings or reviews on hotels, restaurants,
destinations etc

35

Navigate via GPS

27

View virtual guides

26

Sh
are information and photos about experience

24

Use apps like Facebook, foursquare

18

Few miscellaneous (customer loyalty, coupons,
audio tours) (too small of N)

N/A


This provides an indication of the types of services that Alberta Park visitors may fi
nd valuable.
What’s not known is how many Alberta Park visitors have mobile devices. The only reliable
source of information we currently have is from
the
Alberta Park
’s

website statistics and to a
lesser extent the camper satisfaction survey program.


4
.1 AlbertaPark
s.ca

Statistics


In 2011, AlbertaParks.ca experienced 949,933 visitors of which 12% were from mobile platforms.




Interestingly, this is in line with the 2007 Camper Satisfaction Survey which asked campers
from
what location they used

to acce
ss the internet for personal, non
-
business use. 9.9% reported
accessing the internet from their cell phone / mobile device.



Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


30

www.albertaparks.ca


Regarding the 12%

mobile platform usage
,
visitors

averaged 2.1 pages per visit and spent an average
of
2m30s on the site.
These
statistics however are misleading for the following reasons:


1.

Cell networks and slow phone hardware can increase page load times on mobile devices

2.

The Parks website is not yet mobile
-
optimized. Users have to use finger gestures to magnify
and move page co
ntent before it is viewable.


Other

website data suggest
s

mobile visits averaged 100/day leading up to May 1, peaking to roughly
1
,
800/day on the May long weekend, and dropping to around 800/day until the first week of
September where it tapers back to 100
/day.


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


31

www.albertaparks.ca



Comparing AlbertaParks.ca visits by Platform to previously cited statistics reveals stark differences:


AlbertaParks.ca Visits by
Platform (2011)


Share of
Smartphone
Subscribers

Email from
third party
developer

iOS

82.98%

31.0%

84%

Android

10
.88%

12.2%

7%

Blackberry

5.89%

42.0%

8%

Other

0.17%

--

--

Windows

0.07%

5.1%

--



It can be assumed that not all of the AlbertaParks.ca visits are legitimate consumers.
These statistics
may also include

staff, researchers, and students
, each having

a
different set of information needs.




In regards to internet user needs, one
of their major internet needs from

79% of campers is to use
the internet when looking for information about campsites (Camper Satisfaction Survey 2007).


It is difficult to draw an
y sort of conclusion from these numbers. Parks could build an iPhone app
based on the high iOS visits
only to have customers

suddenly shift to preferring the Android. Or
Parks could develop business related services and see a jump in Blackberry visits (B
lackberry is often
cited as having greater use by enterprise users due to the Blackberry’s reputation for stronger
security).


What is evident from

these statistics is the importance of monitoring our actions
.
A critical step for
Parks is to monitor visit
ation and web visitor behavior of the soon
-
to
-
be mobile optimized
website.
This type of on
-
going monitoring will lend support to the decision making process for
mobile apps.

Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


32

www.albertaparks.ca



5.0

J
USTIFYING
M
OBILE
A
PP
D
ECISIONS


R
ETURN ON
I
NVESTMENT


One of the more maj
or discussion points is on the topic of return on investment. Can apps experience a
monetary return on investment?



The illustration (left) shows the tradeoffs
between User Experience, Cost and how
quickly a
mobile a
pp can
be pushed to the
market
. As
the saying goes,
the greater the
risk, the greater the return
.
This is true of
n
ative apps.
While the costs of development
and updates are generally higher for native
apps than web apps, native app stores are said
to generate higher returns thanks to the

benefits
of larger consumer bases and integrated billing
[17].



That said, there are alternative means of
monetizing

w
eb apps (i.e. advertising, cross
selling opportunities, selling virtual goods), but
these techniques depend on the nature of the
project

and the objectives of
Parks’ mobile
strategy.


If one of the objectives is to generate revenue from the sale of apps alone, it may be difficult to achieve.
It could be argued that core business apps are harder to commoditize then flagship apps (particula
rly for
the public sector).


Assuming each potential customer purchases the mobile app in the first year,
subsequent years would
bring no direct sales revenue!

From this example, revenue from sales is not exciting. Yet this does
not limit Parks from bein
g creative with other mobile revenue streams!
Any ROI on mobile apps will
be derived from a strategy
, not the product itself.




Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


33

www.albertaparks.ca


6.0

R
ECOMMENDATIONS


We started with 4 key principles:



Client Driven mobile content development is a key to success.



Lever
age existing assets.



Integrated awareness



Keep it simple


These helped guide the research and discussion presented in this paper which resulted with more key
advice:




From a standards perspective, Government mobile content and services should be as cross
-
platform (i.e., device agnostic) as possible.



If the intent of a mobile app is anything other than addressing client needs, it will fail from the
start.



A safe bet is “If you can do it with the Web


do it with the Web. It’s faster, cheaper, and
easier”.



Approach web apps for the core of Park business, and native apps with value
-
added, segment
specific ideas. Native apps are ‘Flagship apps’ focused on creating an experience with a single
objective for specific customer segments.



Work smarter, not harder.



A critical step for Parks is to monitor visitation and web visitor behavior of the soon
-
to
-
be
mobile optimized website. It will help in mobile app decision making.



ROI will derive from strategy, not the product itself.


So where does Parks go from here? B
elow are some suggested next steps:


Find champions
.
There are those in ‘Parks’ who are both informed and experienced with the available
technology. Task them to lead the development of strategies that outline the divisions’ pursuits in
mobile, web, soci
al media, data management,
and

e
-
government, all of which are connected.


Don’t Panic
.

Let the new AlbertaParks.ca launch before pursuing mobile apps. Then monitor visitor
traffic when AlbertaParks.ca becomes mobile optimized. These statistics will be c
rucial to our mobile
app successes. Take this time to plan that ‘bigger picture’.


Get a handle on existing
data.

Place an increased focus and investment on our data repositories,
master data management, decision support and analytics systems and process
es. These are the assets
Parks can leverage to develop best
-
of
-
breed mobile apps and other projects.


Don’t Reinvent the Wheel.
Parks Division data/information can be communicated through

websites
like TripAdvisor, Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube

and others. A Parks Division strategy would
outline these opportunities. Many of these sites have mobile mechanisms so that Parks may not need to
build its own mobile apps. The fascination of having a mobile app for the sake of having a mobile app
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


34

www.albertaparks.ca


shou
ld be dismissed. We also risk being overwhelmed, trying to take on too many ideas at once.
Remember,
work smarter, not harder
.



Concern ourselves with customer centricity.

Imagine Google forced customers to create usernames
and passwords for each of th
eir services (Docs, Calendar, Gmail, etc…). It does not make for a good
customer experience. For example how can Parks create a Single
-
Sign
-
On (SSO) system that allows
Park web visitors to create ONE username and password to access ALL current and future
online
services?


There is no shortage
of creative and innovative mobi
l
e

opportunities

for Parks.

It is important we
mindfully plan every action with respect to the overall organizational goals. A mobile app or mobile
solution developed by the Edmonton
office or by a region can circumvent or negatively affect the
outcomes originally sought. Collaboration and mobile discussion within the division must be supported.


Given that computer operating system releases such as Mountain Lion (Apple) and Microsoft
's
Windows 8 are all embracing mobile
-
centric features the future
,

it would seem
,

is
all about
mobility.


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


35

www.albertaparks.ca


A
PPENDICES


Appendix 1: List of Related
and Example Mobile Device

Apps and Websites


App / Website

Anecdotal Comments

My Parx

http://www.myparx.com/



Alberta Outdoor Adventure Guide iPhone App

http://www.ab
-
c
onservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/publications/iph
one
-
app/?utm_source=ConstantContact&utm_medium=emai
l&utm_campaign=AppGuide


http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/camp
-
rv/id370820516?mt=8


This app has most/all AB Park sites in it.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oh
-
ranger
-
parkfinder/id402715941?mt=8



http
://www.nationalparksexplorer.com/



http://www.allstays.com/apps/camprv.htm



http://www.trover.com/

(details:
http://www.macworld.com/article/161359/2011/07/trove
r_mobile_discovery_app.html#lsrc.rss_news
)



https://secure.camis.com/Discovercamping
/


Enter this URL on a Smartphone using the browser to access
a mobile version of BC parks reservation system. Other Park
jurisdictions also use this as their online reservation system.

(
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2011/08/city
-
of
-
calgary
-
does
-
more
-
with
-
less
-
for.html
)


The City of Calgary takes a solid approach to providing
citizen services: Many municipalities today are under
increasing pre
ssure to reduce overhead while providing a
wide array of services to citizens. “We looked to the Internet
to enable us to provide enhanced citizen services as
efficiently as possible. Ultimately, our job is to provide city
services as efficiently as poss
ible. We strive to do more with
less. By making the right content easy to retrieve, citizens
get the convenience they seek and we can reduce
unnecessary overhead and increase the value and variety of
our services and programs.”

Boomtown Trail App:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/boomtown
-
trail/id432735179?mt=8


There was a meeting recently where tourism staff were
invited to look at and discuss this App. The purpose of the
App i
s location based sharing of historical digital assets and
information. That is, for parts of Alberta when you are
driving within a certain radius, the App will notify you with
historical pictures and content of the area. There are a
number of other featu
res. However, the app had two
downfalls: 1) Only available for iOS platforms and 2) a large
Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


36

www.albertaparks.ca


195 MB download size. The large app file size not only
affects the decision to download, but also loyal use and
performance issues. The developers are looking at

ways to
improve the app but it may be a long time before the App can
be considered viable.


http://www.albertawow.com/index.htm


Website

http://www.trails.com

Website


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


37

www.albertaparks.ca


Appendix 2: References


[1]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotionn and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression, Frank La Rue.



United Nations General Assembly.

May 2011.

Human
Rights Council.
http:www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf



[2] “iPhone or Android? Governments Ponder App Development Strategies”.

Chad Vander Veen.
July 28,
2011.
http://www.govtech.com/wireless/iPhone
-
Android
-
Governments
-
Ponder
-
App
-
Development
-
Strategies.html



[3] “Analytics Application Mobilizati
on Survey of business technology professionals”.

Peter
Rysavy. August 2010. InformationWeek.


[4] “A New Approach for Mobile: 8 elements of a complete mobile app environment”. Michael
Finneran. August 15, 2011. InformationWeek.


http://www.informationweek.com/news/development/mobility/231300153



[5] “A Case for Web Standards”.

Tribute Media,

2011.
http://www.tributemedia.com/blog/andy
-
harl/case
-
web
-
standards
-
2011



[6]
“Ebookers case study

”.
Google Inc. 2011.
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.co.uk/en/uk/ads/mo
bile/pdfs/casestudies/ebookers.pdf


[7] “Where's our mobile app?”

Rafael Ruffolo. June 2011. ComputerWorld Canada.


[8]
“City of Cal
gary Does More With Less”.
David Watson, Executive Project Sponsor for
Calgary.ca for The City of Calgary. August 15, 2011.
http://googleenterprise.bl
ogspot.com/2011/08/city
-
of
-
calgary
-
does
-
more
-
with
-
less
-
for.html



[9] “Secure Mobile Apps.” Adam Ely. December 2011. InformationWeek.
http://twimgs.com/audiencedevel
opment/JS/InformationWeek_SUP_2011_12.pdf



[10]
“Mobile Web versus Native Apps”.
Norm Rose. September 2010.
http://www.traveltechnology.com/2010/09/mobile
-
web
-
versus
-
n
ative
-
apps/



[11] “What’s the future? Native apps or mobile web apps?”.

May 2011.
http://www.plexical.com/blog/2011/05/02/whats
-
the
-
future
-
native
-
apps
-
or
-
mobile
-
web
-
apps/


[12]

Mobile Development Guidelines for Government Agencies
”.
White Horse Digital Futures
Group. September 2011.


[13] “Web Vs. Native Development: There's No Winner”. Thomas Claburn. August 18, 2011.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/development/web/231500197



Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


38

www.albertaparks.ca


[14]
“Pinch Media Data Shows T
he Average Shelf Life Of An iPhone App Is Less Than 30 Days”.

Erick Schonfeld. February 19, 2009.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/19/pinch
-
media
-
data
-
shows
-
the
-
average
-
shelf
-
life
-
of
-
an
-
iphone
-
app
-
is
-
less
-
than
-
30
-
days/


[15] “Content
-
F
ocused iPad Apps Value Form Over Function, Study Finds”.

Casey Johnston, Ars
Technica. May 29, 2011.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/05/ipad
-
apps
-
form
-
over
-
function/


[16] “Web App Masters: Native or Web
-
Based Mobile Apps?”. Luke Wroblewski. March 2011.
http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1281



[17] “Native, Web or H
ybrid Mobile App Development?”
WorkLight Webinar
Series.
http://www.worklight.com/resources/native
-
web
-
hybrid
-
mobile
-
app
-
development


[18] “Will HTML5 kill the mobile app?”

Mark Sullivan. July 2011.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/236032/will_html5_kill_the_mobile_app.html



[19] “Native or Web Application? How Best to Deliver Content and Service to Your Audiences over
the Mobi
le Phone”.

Lie Luo. April 2010.
http://bit.ly/oALb7b



[20] “Top 7 disruptions of the Year”.

Epicenter Staff. December 28, 2009.


http
://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/top
-
7
-
disruptions
-
of
-
the
-
year/


[21] “Web
-
based Mobile Apps of the Future Using HTML 5, CSS and JavaScript”.

Scott Clark.


http://www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/article.php/3893911/Web
-
based
-
Mobile
-
Apps
-
of
-
the
-
Future
-
Using
-
HTML
-
5
-
CSS
-
and
-
JavaScript.htm


[22] “Smartphone Penetration in Canada higher than US”.

Online Marketing Trends ci
ting
ComScore. June 16, 2011.

http://www.onlinemarketing
-
trends.com/2011/06/smartphone
-
penetration
-
in
-
canada
-
higher.html



[23] “Innovation and Insig
ht: Mapping Ontario’s Mobile Industry”.

Mobile Experience Innovation
Centre, April 2009.


[24] “Who isn’t using a Mobile App?” . June 29, 2011.
http://www.ipsos
-
na.com/news
-
polls
/pressrelease.aspx?id=5270


[25] “comScore Launches Mobile Measurement in Canada:
comScore MobiLens Provides Insights
into Canadian Consumers’ Mobile Behaviors and Device Usage
”. ComScore. June 2011.

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/6/comScore_Launches_Mobile_Meas
urement_in_Canada



[26] “2011 Cell Phone Consumer Attitudes Survey”. May 26, 2011.
eMarketer.co
m. Canadian
Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA).


Mobile Apps Discussion Pap
er

2012


39

www.albertaparks.ca


[27] “Facebook Buys Feature Phone Developer Snaptu For Up To $70 Million”. Ingrid Lunden.
March 20, 2011.
http://moconews.net/article/419
-
facebook
-
buys
-
feature
-
phone
-
developer
-
snaptu
-
for
-
up
-
to
-
70
-
million/


[28] “Apple May Regject Your Mac App If It’s Too Complex”. Filip Truta. October 25, 2010.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hear
-
This
-
Apple
-
May
-
Reject
-
Your
-
Mac
-
App
-
If
-
It
-
s
-
Too
-
Complex
-
162758.shtml


[29] “Apple stamps down on app incentivisation; starts rejecting ga
mes using per install model”. Jon
Jordan. April 19, 2011.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/App+Store/news.asp?c=29232



[30] “Mobile applications, RIP”. Michael Mace. Febr
uary 2008.
http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/02/mobile
-
applications
-
rip.html



[31] “Innovation and Insight: Mapping Ontario's Mobile Industry”. Mobile Expe
rience Innovation
Centre. April 2009.
http://www.slideshare.net/nextmediaevents/mobile
-
experience
-
innovation
-
centre



[32] “City of Ottawa website expands under
open
-
data policy”. Neco Cockburn. The Ottawa
Citizen. October 18, 2011.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/City+Ottawa+website+expand
s+under+open+data+policy/55630
68/story.html



[33] “14
-
Year Old’s iPhone App Beats Out Angry Birds”. Adrianne Jeffries. January 17, 2011.
http://www.observer.
com/2011/media/14
-
year
-
olds
-
iphone
-
app
-
beats
-
out
-
angry
-
birds


[34] “The Rise of Apps Culture”. Kristen Purcell. September 14, 2010.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Pre
ss
-
Releases/2010/The
-
Rise
-
of
-
Apps
-
Culture.aspx



[35] “Few people actually pay for Apps”. Nick McMaster. September 14, 2010.
http://www.newser.com/story/100541/few
-
pe
ople
-
actually
-
pay
-
for
-
apps.html



[36
]

“First Impressions Matter! 26% of Apps Downloaded in 2010 Were Used Just Once”.
Jan 1,
2011.
h
ttp://www.localytics.com/blog/2011/first
-
impressions
-
matter
-
26
-
percent
-
of
-
apps
-
downloaded
-
used
-
just
-
once/




[37] “Average Price for iPhone App Keeps Falling”. Frederic Lardinois. March 22, 2010.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/average_price_for_iphone_apps_keeps_falling.php



[38] Ypartnership and Harrison Group’s “2011 Portrait of American Travelers”.


[39] “The Cost of Building an iPad App”. Octo
ber 17, 2010.
http://www.padgadget.com/2010/10/17/the
-
cost
-
of
-
building
-
an
-
ipad
-
app/